Author: K. Burcham
Date: 10:25:48 01/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2004 at 11:20:44, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 18, 2004 at 08:37:19, Harald Faber wrote:
>
>>In my few idle time I am testing Shredder 8 on tournament level versus Junior 8
>>(because I will operate Junior 8 in the computerchess tournament in Bernburg in
>>March this year). While playing I became witness of this interesting game:
>>
>
>I have seen engines lose from +5 and draw from +8 on ICC. This includes
>both commercial programs as well as mine. Draws are particularly easy to fall
>into as with queens on the board, it might be 30 moves before the first
>repetition occurs and programs simply can't see that every time...
>
>Losing from +5 can be caused by several things, from a king attack to mis-
>understanding a pawn ending.
>
>That's why I mentioned my take on programs resigning in important games,
>there is no benefit to resigning against a computer, and there is a potential
>problem in that you might _still_ win. See Jonny vs Shredder for example,
>although there are plenty of other examples floating around in past chess
>games.
Robert when a program has a three move repetition problem in the code, is this
different than when a program that cannot see that +4 should be -2 because
position is too deep to see true score?
kburcham
>
>
>>[Event "Junior8 Vorbereitung, 120'/40+0'/0+60'"]
>>[Site "CELERON1400"]
>>[Date "2004.01.18"]
>>[Round "2"]
>>[White "Shredder 8"]
>>[Black "Junior 8"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>[ECO "B66"]
>>[Annotator "-0.12;-0.18"]
>>[PlyCount "96"]
>>[TimeControl "40/7200:0/0:3600"]
>>
>>{W=18.5 ply; 343kN/s B=18.1 ply; 1.137kN/s; 6.709 TBAs} 1. e4 {0} c5 {0} 2.
>>Nf3 {0} d6 {0} 3. d4 {0} cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} Nf6 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} Nc6 {0} 6. Bg5
>>{0} e6 {0} 7. Qd2 {0} a6 {0} 8. O-O-O {0} h6 {0} 9. Be3 {0} Bd7 {0} 10. f4 {0}
>>Qc7 {0} 11. Bd3 {0} b5 {0} 12. Kb1 {0} Na5 {0} 13. Qe1 {0} Nc4 {0} 14. Bc1 {0}
>>b4 {0} 15. Nce2 {0} a5 {0} 16. h3 {Beide letzter Buchzug 0} a4 {-0.18/18 448}
>>17. g4 {-0.12/17 0} a3 {0.00/17 367} 18. b3 {-0.12/19 0} Nb2 {0.03/17 186} 19.
>>Bxb2 {0.37/20 806} axb2 {-0.02/18 2} 20. Qxb4 {0.48/21 1474} d5 {
>>(Le7) 0.28/19 2} 21. Qc3 {0.60/19 317} Qb6 {(Da7) 0.21/18 352} 22. e5 {
>>0.79/19 413} Ne4 {(Lb4) 0.25/18 2} 23. Bxe4 {0.72/19 487} dxe4 {0.55/17 213}
>>24. f5 {0.92/19 470} Ba3 {(Da6) 0.55/17 171} 25. fxe6 {1.53/15 47} fxe6 {
>>(Lxe6) 0.85/17 354} 26. Rhf1 {1.71/17 238} Rf8 {0.96/17 319} 27. Rxf8+ {
>>(De3) 1.89/17 0} Kxf8 {(Lxf8) 0.94/16 268} 28. Qe3 {2.27/18 235} Kg8 {
>>1.12/18 731} 29. Qxe4 {2.29/20 88} Rd8 {(Da5) 1.42/18 660} 30. g5 {
>>(Sc3) 2.98/19 287} hxg5 {1.59/17 503} 31. Qg6 {(Sc3) 2.74/19 21} Bb5 {
>>1.15/17 423} 32. c4 {(Dxg5) 2.32/19 13} Bc6 {0.79/17 277} 33. Qxe6+ {2.08/18 71
>>} Kh8 {0.63/19 464} 34. Qg6 {(Df5) 1.45/19 326} Qc5 {0.23/15 60} 35. Qf5 {
>>0.83/18 516} Bb7 {0.00/20 2} 36. h4 {0.58/18 199} Rf8 {(gxh4) 0.00/17 133} 37.
>>Qxg5 {1.89/16 80} Be4+ {-0.04/17 92} 38. Nc2 {-0.42/19 558} Qf2 {-0.07/18 2}
>>39. Ned4 {-0.42/19 313} Kg8 {-0.37/19 2} 40. Qg1 {-0.18/16 72} Qxh4 {
>>-0.35/18 365} 41. e6 {-0.19/18 0} Rf2 {-0.94/18 194} 42. Qe1 {-0.34/18 0} Qf4 {
>>(Lc5) -0.81/17 196} 43. b4 {-1.11/15 157} Kf8 {-2.26/17 85} 44. b5 {-2.60/13 51
>>} Ke7 {-3.08/16 78} 45. Nc6+ {(c5) -4.27/14 153} Kxe6 {-4.58/16 244} 46. N6d4+
>>{(c5) -6.86/16 846} Kf7 {-4.62/16 35} 47. c5 {-7.30/15 85} Bxc5 {-4.16/15 1}
>>48. Kxb2 {-7.05/15 156} Bxd4+ {-4.05/16 2} 0-1
>>
>>Shredder 8 on a P4-2.53GHz and Junior 8 on my Celeron@1539MHz, both 256MB hash.
>>A remarkable result, considerung that Shredder showed almost +3 in move 30 with
>>search depth of 19.
>>
>>Position before 30.g5 +2.98/19:
>>[D]3r2k1/3b2p1/1q2p2p/4P3/3NQ1P1/bP5P/PpP1N3/1K1R4 w - - 0 30
>>
>>Current standing is surprisingly 4-2 in favour of Junior.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.